> > the defaul crypto police (update-crypto-policies --set LEGACY) , I
> > wrote in
> > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/header-v3-rsa-sha1-signature-key-id-d651ff2e-bad/42350/4
> > one solution .
> >
> > And I have checked all rpmfusion packages with fc36 have SHA1 when
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 11:05 PM Leigh Scott via rpmfusion-developers
wrote:
>
> I don't think a +2 release upgrade is a valid test case, I believe f37
> is SHA256 signed.
>
Fedora officially supports a +2 release upgrade, and
for reasons[0][1], some people only upgrade to N when
N-2 is about to
777
Header V3 RSA/SHA1 Signature, key ID d651ff2e: BAD
Header SHA256 digest: OK
Header SHA1 digest: OK
[2]
https://www.scrye.com/wordpress/nirik/2023/01/31/error-rpmdbnextiterator-skipping-in-fedora-38/
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/popular-third-party-rpms-fail-to-install-update-remove-due-t
led in F38 unless we change
the defaul crypto police (update-crypto-policies --set LEGACY) , I
wrote in
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/header-v3-rsa-sha1-signature-key-id-d651ff2e-bad/42350/4
one solution .
And I have checked all rpmfusion packages with fc36 have SHA1 when now
we need to h
